[Tools-discuss] consensus="true" ?

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 05 May 2021 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606513A1DCB for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye4UQ3WI6YCR for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 18:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4EC3A1DC8 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 18:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FZfGS6pdFzF4Y for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 03:27:44 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1620178064; bh=XeDJkzOB4LNxsp4NCr9qvhEhBtp9Bgs4SjVBJx3Jq0Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=ToSU/PesC4OJQarR+BW6P8qn8HxlmZdtVUTIjyxoAul3TxjUrTN0jNdy5VoVoqo38 mGQij/KsbZZhpljbHXIfX62+0bOfUW1NqQBMSxPyf7LJdVmNQbAds2Jl6xwVZ75YAp euqOK2HKWCZalSQteF8wR2sBVk7VyN6Is8UbTZUI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7pjnGxJK6tQ for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 03:27:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 03:27:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F1F234D722; Tue, 4 May 2021 21:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB92F4D721 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 21:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 21:27:41 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <ab7beebb-f9c3-eda-e5f6-f5b2590d521@nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/o5g3gUaUcFBXc_6m6FWgDBav_Bk>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] consensus="true" ?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 01:27:58 -0000

Hi,

My local xml2rfc warns me with:

Warning: Setting consensus="true" for IETF STD document (this is not the schema default, but is the only value permitted for this type of document)

When I add consensus="true" to the rfc tag, the warning goes away. But
the version running on the datatracker than warns me with:

One or more XML validation errors occurred when processing the XML file:

draft-ietf-ipsecme-labeled-ipsec-05.xml: Line 26: Value "true" for attribute consensus of rfc is not among the enumerated set

Which one is right, and who has the power to fix the one that is wrong?  :)

Paul